Topic: Omni-Play and Incoherence
Started by: Shreyas Sampat
Started on: 2/13/2004
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 2/13/2004 at 2:18am, Shreyas Sampat wrote:
Omni-Play and Incoherence
Split from The Omni-Player.
Caldis raised a question about the implications Omni-Play has on incoherence that I wanted to reply to.
If the omni-player is possible and games that appeal to the omni-player exist (Riddle of Steel for example) what does that say about "System does Matter" and incoherence? Generally it's been a given that designing for multiple modes is not a good idea but this would seem to counter that thought.
I'd like to ask you what definition of incoherence you're using, and I disagree right out with your statement about design for multiple modes. Essentially, the above-linked discussion says, "Creative Agenda Matters Too."
An informal definition in line with my intuition: "Incoherence" is a quality of a game that has different system components that facilitate different GNS modes such that the system components come into conflict.
There is a crucial difference between technically incoherent games and those that support multiple modes harmoniously. (I do not know TRoS, but its reputation suggests to me that it's the latter.) Designing with conflicting mode-support goals is clearly a bad idea, but designing with consideration for two or all modes is another thing again.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 102142
On 2/13/2004 at 4:04am, Paganini wrote:
Re: Omni-Play and Incoherence
Shreyas Sampat wrote: An informal definition in line with my intuition: "Incoherence" is a quality of a game that has different system components that facilitate different GNS modes such that the system components come into conflict.
Absolutely, Shreyas. And, before anyone objects, remember that acording to the Lumpley Principle, "System" is the means we use to decide what happens during the game... be it mechanics, or negotiation, or whatever. Any game text that tells us how to do this can be considered system text. The Window is a prime example: Even though they're not mechanical, the three Precepts are System without question. So, a lot of times you'll end up with a game text that says to play one way, but then has mechanics that try to make you play a different way.
On 2/13/2004 at 12:31pm, Caldis wrote:
RE: Omni-Play and Incoherence
I phrased it as a question because I'm not sure what my thoughts exactly are on this matter but I'll try and formulate them a little more cleary, see if it makes sense to anyone.
Just to recap in the previous thread Mike Holmes postulated the Omni-player who was able to recognize the mode of play and adjust his style in accordance, Emily Care and C. Edwards replied that omni-play already exists and that it is more common than you think, Mike replied that was his point.
From Ron Edwards "System does Matter"
One of the biggest problems I observe in RPG systems is that they often try to satisfy all three outlooks at once. The result, sadly, is a guarantee that almost any player will be irritated by some aspect of the system during play. GMs' time is then devoted, as in the Herbie example, to throwing out the aspects that don't accord for a particular group. A "good" GM becomes defined as someone who can do this well - but why not eliminate this laborious step and permit a (for example) Gamist GM to use a Gamist game, getting straight to the point? I suggest that building the system specifically to accord with one of these outlooks is the first priority of RPG design.
The discussion may have moved on from this point and Ron's ideas may have changed over time since this was written but it is fairly clearly stating that designing for multiple goals is not a good idea. Incoherence has always been the term I've seen used to describe the problems that arise from this, trying to please too many goals leads to a muddled mess.
Incoherence also seems be used to address the false advertising of play text stating one thing but actual system promoting another (Vampire as the classic example), that I can fully agree with.
I mentioned Riddle of Steel because it does seem to successfully address all three goals. Spiritual attributes are a wowzer of a narrativist tool, the combat system is designed to as closely as possible simulate actual combat and it becomes a game where player skill is as or more important than the characters involved.
As I see it there are two ways that working for multiple goals can conflict. The first is the conflict of time being stolen from one to address the other. The Narrative premise is not being addressed while I'm trying to figure out what my best option is in this fight.
The other conflict is when application of one breaks the sense of another.
The classic 6th level fighter jumps off a 50' cliff to escape an unbeatable foe knowing it's impossible for the dm to roll enough damage to kill him.
Balancing the goals and avoiding these conflicts is a tricky business but I think it's possible. The question is as Ron states in the quote above is it worth the extra hassle of doing that balancing act?
charles ferguson wrote:
So coherence to me involves a designer being very clear about what his or her respective G-N-S prioritories are in a particular case, and then creating a game that very clearly communicates & facilitates those priorities to the readers.
I think we're pretty much in agreement here but I still have the question should a designer try and create specifically for his goals or can he try and incorporate elements for all three, as long as he does actually address them?
On 2/13/2004 at 2:22pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Omni-Play and Incoherence
Hello,
Caldis, you're correct that System Does Matter represents an early stage of my thinking about this topic, and the paragraph that Charles quoted from my later GNS essay is definitely more in line with my current thinking.
However, I also think that this "omni-play" beast that people are talking about is going to get seized upon for all sorts of positions that it's not suited for.
I'm pretty sure that this term is not referring to:
- a bunch of little snippets of Step On Up, Story Now, and the Right to Dream, none of which get very developed, all kind of rattling around together in a big can.
- play with a solid, single mode that gets occasionally reinforced by shifting briefly to a second mode
- a point that I've been making for years, that anyone "can" play "any mode" with "any game" (Of course they can; GNS is about play.)
If I'm mistaken and that's what is intended by this term, then I just shrug; none of that seems to challenge my thoughts on coherent play: that if Creative Agenda is explicit and respected, then role-playing is more fun.
No, I think this Omni-play is referring to something else: really firing on all three cylinders during a single instance of play, regarding the same Explored components all at once.
And I think it's an interesting theoretical construct, but I'm pretty skeptical that it happens. Sure that it doesn't? No. But skeptical, and very inclined to point to the three possibilities above as being far more likely.
Best,
Ron
On 2/13/2004 at 3:50pm, Marhault wrote:
RE: Omni-Play and Incoherence
Ron: I think everything you said about what Omni-Play is not is true. I'm not sure I agree with you about what it is, though.
In truth, I think this entire thread is founded on a misconception. That being:
Caldis wrote: If the omni-player is possible and games that appeal to the omni-player exist (Riddle of Steel for example) what does that say about "System does Matter" and incoherence?
*snip*
I think the problem here is that we're discussing the Omni-Player as if he wants to do all three at once, and that a game that facilitated all three CAs would be his Holy Grail. (Note: to answer the question in part, it says nothing about incoherence. This game would be a Triple-Hybrid) The Omni-Player can enjoy all three goals, but Omni-Play is really about fitting your personal GNS goals to those of the rest of the group.
From Mike's first post in The Omni-Player
Mike Holmes wrote: if you're educated in the three modes and what they entail, you can personally try to keep your decisions more congruent. In this way, you make your play such that it's less likely to be incompatible to players who are playing with you.
It's about a Narrativist enjoying a Dungeon Crawl with no theme. It's about a Gamist getting off on Exploring. It's about doing these things when you can't do what you would normally favor. In other words, Ron, it's not about firing on all three cylinders at once, it's about choosing which cylinder to fire on.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 9724
On 2/13/2004 at 3:57pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Omni-Play and Incoherence
Well, that's what I'm looking for: clarification. Mike, you and I have talked about this for a while - can you really nail down (no leading, no hoping we "get it," just say it) what you're presenting? And whether you think it happens a lot, or whether it's a new-type goal thing?
Best,
Ron
On 2/14/2004 at 1:40am, charles ferguson wrote:
RE: Omni-Play and Incoherence
Hi
I agree that we need to define what we mean when we say 'Omni-player' & 'coherence'.
I used "Omni-player" in the sense of 'someone who conciously adopts different GNS modes during play', in the context of my post in the orig thread:
...consciously tweaking your own personal 'sliders' during play (within the parameters of the SC) to bring them closer to what you percieve as the consensual optimum--or maybe in a specific instance, closer to a fellow players', as a way of supporting/enhancing/buying into their RP goals
With "coherence", my meaning was again fairly narrow: I used it as measure of how effectively a game promotes the designer's goals regarding where each of the GNS 'sliders' should be set for that particular game. This does presuppose that the designer has clear & conscious goals in this area--but doesn't link this to a judgment on whether or not the chosen goals are likely to produce a playable game.
In other words, using my definition:
• conscious GNS goals + clear implementation of those goals = [coherent design]
• conscious GNS goals + poorly chosen GNS goals + clear implementation of those goals = [coherent design] AND [unplayable game]
A broader definition of coherence would be one that encompasses 'clear GNS goals, effectively communicated' AND does not violate Shreyas' informal definition of incoherence (above):
"Incoherence" is a quality of a game that has different system components that facilitate different GNS modes such that the system components come into conflict.
I'm not sure which of these is currently meant in the GNS essays. Ron?
On 2/14/2004 at 5:36am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Omni-Play and Incoherence
Hi Charles,
Actually, I avoid any mention whatsoever of designer goals in all of my terminology.
Coherence, to me, simply means that game-play has a Creative Agenda that everyone understands. If that means more than one, fine. If it means I-do-this you-do-that, fine. If it means (as I tend to think most often) same-page-for-all, fine.
Now that's talking about play. If we're talking about design, then Coherent obviously means "rules which inspire and facilitate Coherent play," which of course is no guarantee that it will happen. The point is that the rules don't fuck it up through some intrinsic contradiction or broken Currency or whatever.
Does that make sense?
Best,
Ron
On 2/14/2004 at 4:07pm, Caldis wrote:
RE: Omni-Play and Incoherence
Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Charles,
Actually, I avoid any mention whatsoever of designer goals in all of my terminology.
Coherence, to me, simply means that game-play has a Creative Agenda that everyone understands. If that means more than one, fine. If it means I-do-this you-do-that, fine. If it means (as I tend to think most often) same-page-for-all, fine.
Now that's talking about play. If we're talking about design, then Coherent obviously means "rules which inspire and facilitate Coherent play," which of course is no guarantee that it will happen. The point is that the rules don't fuck it up through some intrinsic contradiction or broken Currency or whatever.
Does that make sense?
Best,
Ron
It's definitely helped me in understanding that Incoherence refers more to the false advertising I was talking about earlier than it is about conflicting styles. As long as everybody is on the same page, or at least knows what page everyone else is reading from, things can work out ok.
So if Omniplay refers to adjusting your personal sliders as Charles said then the game remains coherent as long as the system allows for this. If however the system is more restrictive and you can not flow freely between modes then the game will no longer be coherent for the omni player.
As to the possibility of Omni play being about all three cylinders firing at once, I can see that happening in very limited circumstance.
In Riddle of Steel in combat where you manage to get your spiritual attributes firing to address narrativism, the combat system emphasizes the simulationist desire to explore medieval combat realistically, the game element of figuring out the best manuever, all work together creating one big bang.
Theoretically I can see it in some type of murder mystery where the genre is emulated perfectly, the characters involved in the mystery allow the characters to address a premise, and the gamist gets to figure out whodunit.
Again I think these moments in games would be very limited and cant exist throughout an entire game session but could become the big oomph to close a game.
On 2/15/2004 at 10:42pm, charles ferguson wrote:
RE: Omni-Play and Incoherence
Hey Ron,
Ron wrote:
Coherence, to me, simply means that game-play has a Creative Agenda that everyone understands... Now that's talking about play. If we're talking about design, then Coherent obviously means "rules which inspire and facilitate Coherent play,"...
Cool, thanks.
Does that make sense?
Yup!
I guess what I'm trying to do in this thread is to take the descriptive model you've presented, and use it as a shared tool to explore & expand my own ideas on RPG design.
I see it as part of my progressive (if often uneven) move forward from "Do I understand GNS, & how does it sit with me?" to "What implications/ principles/ insights will it open up?"
Right now I see myself as pretty comfortable with the first of those questions, & heading eagerly in the far more exciting directions offered by the second.
My perception (although its just that--my perception, I don't presume to speak for anyone else) is that this is the angle most of the other posts in this thread are coming from too, and that its also the broad trend for this forum in general.
Which, if its true (& hey, I'm just a newbie here, I could be getting this all hopelessly muddled) sounds way fun :)
On 2/16/2004 at 12:56am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Omni-Play and Incoherence
charles ferguson wrote: I guess what I'm trying to do in this thread is to take the descriptive model you've presented, and use it as a shared tool to explore & expand my own ideas on RPG design.
Not to toot my own horn or anything, but have you read Applied Theory? It specifically addresses different areas in RPG design in which the Social Creative Agenda theory leads to asking the right questions.
--M. J. Young
Forge Reference Links:
On 2/16/2004 at 3:37am, charles ferguson wrote:
RE: Omni-Play and Incoherence
Hi M.J.,
I did read it early on in my attempts to bring myself up to speed on GNS & the current state of play here the Forge, but I was being hit with a lot of new ideas at the time, & IIRC it was sometime in the wee hours :)
I've read a whole bunch more posts & articles in the week or so since then though, & hopefully things have bedded down a little better. I'll go take another look at it now--thanks.
On 2/16/2004 at 8:32pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Omni-Play and Incoherence
I haven't read all the responses perfectly well, but overall, to clarify what I mean by Omni-play, simply I mean, adjusting your play so that the responses tend to "show" less in terms of those moments that are GNS identifiable - play congruently more often. Such that no player is likely to object you your play.
Does that need further clarification?
Mike